TY - JOUR
T1 - Public opinion about solar radiation management
T2 - A cross-cultural study in 20 countries around the world
AU - Contzen, Nadja
AU - Perlaviciute, Goda
AU - Steg, Linda
AU - Reckels, Sophie Charlotte
AU - Alves, Susana
AU - Bidwell, David
AU - Böhm, Gisela
AU - Bonaiuto, Marino
AU - Chou, Li Fang
AU - Corral-Verdugo, Victor
AU - Dessi, Federica
AU - Dietz, Thomas
AU - Doran, Rouven
AU - Eulálio, Maria do Carmo
AU - Fielding, Kelly
AU - Gómez-Román, Cristina
AU - Granskaya, Juliana V.
AU - Gurikova, Tatyana
AU - Hernández, Bernardo
AU - Kabakova, Maira P.
AU - Lee, Chieh Yu
AU - Li, Fan
AU - Lima, Maria Luísa
AU - Liu, Lu
AU - Luís, Sílvia
AU - Muinos, Gabriel
AU - Ogunbode, Charles A.
AU - Ortiz, María Victoria
AU - Pidgeon, Nick
AU - Pitt, Maria Argüello
AU - Rahimi, Leila
AU - Revokatova, Anastasia
AU - Reyna, Cecilia
AU - Schuitema, Geertje
AU - Shwom, Rachael
AU - Yalcinkaya, Nur Soylu
AU - Spence, Elspeth
AU - Sütterlin, Bernadette
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/4
Y1 - 2024/4
N2 - Some argue that complementing climate change mitigation measures with solar radiation management (SRM) might prove a last resort to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To make a socially responsible decision on whether to use SRM, it is important to consider also public opinion, across the globe and particularly in the Global South, which would face the greatest risks from both global warming and SRM. However, most research on public opinion about SRM stems from the Global North. We report findings from the first large-scale, cross-cultural study on the public opinion about SRM among the general public (N = 2,248) and students (N = 4,583) in 20 countries covering all inhabited continents, including five countries from the Global South and five ‘non-WEIRD’ (i.e. not Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) countries from the Global North. As public awareness of SRM is usually low, we provided participants with information on SRM, including key arguments in favour of and against SRM that appear in the scientific debate. On average, acceptability of SRM was significantly higher in the Global South than in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, while acceptability in the ‘WEIRD’ Global North was in between. However, we found substantial variation within these clusters, especially in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, suggesting that countries do not form homogenous clusters and should thus be considered individually. Moreover, the average participants’ views, while generally neither strong nor polarised, differed from some expert views in important ways, including that participants perceived SRM as only slightly effective in limiting global warming. Still, our data suggests overall a conditional, reluctant acceptance. That is, while on average, people think SRM would have mostly negative consequences, they may still be willing to tolerate it as a potential last resort to fight global warming, particularly if they think SRM has only minor negative (or even positive) impacts on humans and nature.
AB - Some argue that complementing climate change mitigation measures with solar radiation management (SRM) might prove a last resort to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To make a socially responsible decision on whether to use SRM, it is important to consider also public opinion, across the globe and particularly in the Global South, which would face the greatest risks from both global warming and SRM. However, most research on public opinion about SRM stems from the Global North. We report findings from the first large-scale, cross-cultural study on the public opinion about SRM among the general public (N = 2,248) and students (N = 4,583) in 20 countries covering all inhabited continents, including five countries from the Global South and five ‘non-WEIRD’ (i.e. not Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) countries from the Global North. As public awareness of SRM is usually low, we provided participants with information on SRM, including key arguments in favour of and against SRM that appear in the scientific debate. On average, acceptability of SRM was significantly higher in the Global South than in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, while acceptability in the ‘WEIRD’ Global North was in between. However, we found substantial variation within these clusters, especially in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, suggesting that countries do not form homogenous clusters and should thus be considered individually. Moreover, the average participants’ views, while generally neither strong nor polarised, differed from some expert views in important ways, including that participants perceived SRM as only slightly effective in limiting global warming. Still, our data suggests overall a conditional, reluctant acceptance. That is, while on average, people think SRM would have mostly negative consequences, they may still be willing to tolerate it as a potential last resort to fight global warming, particularly if they think SRM has only minor negative (or even positive) impacts on humans and nature.
KW - Climate engineering
KW - Perceived benefits
KW - Perceived justice
KW - Perceived risks
KW - Public opinion
KW - Technology acceptance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85188885698&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10584-024-03708-3
DO - 10.1007/s10584-024-03708-3
M3 - Artículo
AN - SCOPUS:85188885698
SN - 0165-0009
VL - 177
JO - Climatic Change
JF - Climatic Change
IS - 4
M1 - 65
ER -